PRIVATE PROPERTY IN LAND 103 
ownership of land, in the most positive terms; and he is right. 
. . . To haggle about the difference between possession 
and ownership of land is mere word-catching. But Mr. George 
uses the term “ownership” (i. e., private ownership) in the 
most positive way. Neither he nor myself sets up absolute 
ownership. Therefore, it follows of necessity that the only 
ground of difference between the advocates of the single tax 
system, who concur with IV^r. George in admitting the absolute 
necessity of private ownership of land, under suitable conditions, 
to whiclr all shall be subject alike, is as to the conditions under 
which that private ownership and possession shall be granted, 
and under which peaceable possession through all time and 
through all transfers shall be sustained by the whole power 
of the State. . . . In the present discussion, it has appeared 
that Mr. George and myself agree:— 
1. That there is no absolute ownership of land under the 
English common law. We agree that what individuals now 
possess is “an estate in land,” which is subject to many con 
ditions. These conditions may be varied. . . . 
2. We agree that the individual possession of land is necessary 
to productive use, in order that humanity may be sustained; 
in other words, that the land must be impropriated. ^ 
And so, with Henry George, we insist that the real 
controversy in hand is not over the question whether 
private property in land is right or wrong, but whether 
in law and in morals private ownership of land should 
or should not include the private appropriation of 
ground rent, the annual value of the land and —if it 
should —what ought to be the limit of such 
appropriation. 
The contention of the single tax advocate is that 
this limit is to be found in the dictates of justice rather 
than in the letter of any ephemeral statute. On this 
Point, above the utterances of agitators and economists.